SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs have filed the present suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 10. 03. 2002 in respect of shop nos. 4 and 5, in the property no. 720-A (old) and IX/7018 (new), situated at Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi consisting of two shops on the ground floor, one hall on the first floor, one room set on the second floor with all terrace rights. The aforesaid agreement deed records that the total sale consideration agreed upon was Rs. 70,51,000/ -. Vacant possession was required to be handed over of the first floor to top floor as per the agreement deed but the ground ground floor being in the possession of the tenant was to be handed over to the plaintiffs with the tenancy rights. Rs. 2 lakh had been paid as earnest money under the agreement and the balance had to be paid at the time of completion of purchase. The agreement deed provides for the purchase to be completed on 30. 07. 2002 subject to the defendant making out a good martketable title.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the plaintiffs that in furtherance to the aforesaid agreement, plaintiff no. 1 had paid to the defendant a further sum of Rs 1,00,000/- on 12. 07. 2002, which was encashed. This is, however, disputed by the defendant who claims that the agreement deed was executed only between the defendant and plaintiff no. 2 and the amount of Rs 1,00,000/- paid by plaintiff no. 1 was for purchase of certain goods. It may be noticed that the plaintiffs rely on a General Power of Attorney executed by plaintiff no. 2 in favour of plaintiff no. 1 on 30. 07. 2005.

( 3 ) ONE of the objections raised in the written statement is that the suit is barred by time. It is further stated that the property has been sold to Smt. Arvinder Kaur Ahuja, divorcee of Sardar A. S. Ahuja, who further let out the property to M/s Manpreet Industries and Lovely Furniture the ones presently in the possession of the property.

( 4 ) THE matter has been placed before the Court at the stage when the admission/denial of documents had to be carried out in view of the submission of learned counsel for the defendant that the plaint is ex facie barred by time and thus is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 ('the said Code' for short ). On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has been disputing this position and has further sought details and particulars by which the defendant has sold the property so as to implead the subsequent purchasers/tenants.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard. In order to appreciate the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, relevant provision of Order 7 rule 11 of the said Code is re-produced hereunder: rejection of plaint " The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: a ). . . . . . . . . . . . b ). . . . . . . . . . . . c ). . . . . . . . . . . . d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

( 6 ) IT is trite to say that for the purposes of rejection of a plaint, it is only the averments made in the plaint/documents filed with the plaint or undisputed documents which can be relied upon. The claim of learned counsel for the defendant is based on a fact that the averment in the plaint states that undisputedly the agreement deed is 10. 03. 2002, date of performance is stipulated as 30. 07. 2002 and the suit is filed on 30. 07. 2005.

( 7 ) THESE facts are not even disputed by learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It is thus the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant that the last date for filing a suit was 29. 05. 2005 since the last date of performance was 30. 07. 2002.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiffs has, however, disputed the aforesaid proposition and submits that date of 30. 07. 2005 has to be excluded and the limitation would commence from the next date i. e. 31. 07. 2002. It is thus pleaded that the limitation would expire on 30. 07. 2005 and thus the suit filed on that date would

Click Here to Read the rest of this document